This is why we need to stop being such douchebags about gun violence research

[Barrister]

Honest question from an amateur:  what sorts of uses are there for an AR-15, other than collectability?  Is it useful for sporting or hunting?  Other things?

Any rifle, AR-15 included, can be useful for sport shooting.  Apparently the AR-15 is particularly good for shooting because it has low recoil.

The AR-15 is also highly modular.  You can change it to a larger calibre ammunition and use it for hunting - and now you don't need to buy two separate rifles.

[The Minsky Moment]

BB, berkut - that all makes sense, thanks.

[Barrister]

BB, berkut - that all makes sense, thanks.

Also, because it's modular there's a whole subculture of modifying them.  Think computer enthusiasts today, or hot rodders of the 1950s-1960s.  The practical benefits probably aren't really there, but they have fun doing it anyways.

[DGuller]

To be fair, that nut in Virginia Tech killed 30+ just with pistols.

[Barrister]

To be fair, that nut in Virginia Tech killed 30+ just with pistols.

In a lot of ways pistols are more dangerous because they can be concealed.  Pretty hard to sneak an AR-15 into a crowded nightclub without being noticed.

[Berkut]

True. He managed to kill 30 people in nine minutes using 17 magazines and two pistols. How in the hell did he carry 17 magazines???

[11B4V]

True. He managed to kill 30 people in nine minutes using 17 magazines and two pistols. How in the hell did he carry 17 magazines???

Not hard really. They make all kinds of "High speed" vest for example to carry stuff like that.

[Berkut]

True. He managed to kill 30 people in nine minutes using 17 magazines and two pistols. How in the hell did he carry 17 magazines???

Not hard really. They make all kinds of "High speed" vest for example to carry stuff like that.

And the need for high speed vests is clearly protected by the second as well, I am sure.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well I think laws should be sensible. Our gun laws mostly are not (on the side of being too permissive) but there's a few areas where they are not on the other side. Banning a type of clothing would be an example of bad policy, namely because it's fucking stupid. Unless you ban needle and thread I seriously doubt the super small number of people who would use such a vest couldn't replicate them in an afternoon at home. Maybe faster if they just use some cheap velcro tape.

The prohibition on silencers is also frankly stupid. It'd be a great boon for people's ears if we didn't so restrict them in America. You'd still need to wear ear protection, but if you shoot at an indoor range (and a lot of people do) silenced shots in aggregate would make it a good bit less noisy.

I do tend to think the form of the 1994 AWB was essentially worthless. Like I've said--the only meaningful gun control is gun control which reduces the number of guns in society and reduces the number of gun owners. The 1994 AWB didn't do that.

That's why instead of focusing on "scary weapons", we should focus on licensing. I also think the optics are better. When you're in the business of banning specific guns, I think it's much easier to represent that as government overreach, "taking things away from citizens", even among people who aren't gun owners. But if we create a licensing requirement to own firearms we aren't taking anything away at all, we're just promoting good, safe gun ownership. The NRA will pitch a fit over both, but I think political capital should be expended on licensing, since that will kill "casual" gun ownership. That significantly reduces the problem of guns in America all by itself in a few generations.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW I'd be fine with restricting civilian semiautomatic rifles to 5-10 round magazines and capping pistol magazines at 10 rounds.

I have several semiautomatic rifles but my favorite is actually Springfield M1A Scout, I've never had anything more than a 10 round magazine in it, and frankly if it had come with a 5 round instead of a 10, that would cover my uses just fine as well.

I just think in a world of limited political capital focuses on feature/weapon bans aren't really the right approach.

[The Brain]

You can't have any silencers in America?

[The Minsky Moment]

You can't have any silencers in America?

Silencing is not permitted.  First Amendment.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You can't have any silencers in America?

Not easily.

In the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act. They are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in 41 of the 50 states. However, a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a federal tax payment of $200 and a thorough criminal background check. The tax payment buys a revenue stamp, which is the legal document allowing possession of a suppressor. The use of a gun trust to register with the BATFE has become an increasingly popular method of acquisition and ownership of silencers.[41] The following jurisdictions have explicitly banned any civilian from possessing a suppressor: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,[42] and the District of Columbia. The federal legal requirements to manufacture a suppressor in the United States are enumerated in Title 26, Chapter 53 of the United States Code.[43] The individual states and several municipalities also have their specific requirements. Federal law provides severe penalties for crimes of violence committed using firearms equipped with silencers: a minimum prison sentence of 30 years.

[The Brain]

You can't have any silencers in America?

Not easily.

In the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act. They are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in 41 of the 50 states. However, a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a federal tax payment of $200 and a thorough criminal background check. The tax payment buys a revenue stamp, which is the legal document allowing possession of a suppressor. The use of a gun trust to register with the BATFE has become an increasingly popular method of acquisition and ownership of silencers.[41] The following jurisdictions have explicitly banned any civilian from possessing a suppressor: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,[42] and the District of Columbia. The federal legal requirements to manufacture a suppressor in the United States are enumerated in Title 26, Chapter 53 of the United States Code.[43] The individual states and several municipalities also have their specific requirements. Federal law provides severe penalties for crimes of violence committed using firearms equipped with silencers: a minimum prison sentence of 30 years.

Thanks Obama.

[DGuller]

Getting a silencer is a real pain in the ass.  It's much easier to just go old school and use a pillow.